8.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Iaşi.
9.  The applicant, who was admitted to the Bucharest Bar Association in December 2004, was involved, as a party, in several sets of civil and criminal proceedings.
10.  In February 2003 she was informed by E.E., a prosecutor attached to the Iaşi District Court, that she was suspected of incitement to false testimony. She was specifically suspected of having persuaded the witnesses in a different set of criminal proceedings to give false testimony. The development of those proceedings is described in paragraphs 37 to 57 below.
11.  At about 9 a.m. on 28 May 2003 the applicant went to the prosecutor’s office attached to the Iaşi District Court. According to her, she wanted to submit a complaint to the superior of the prosecutor investigating the case against her. According to the Government, the applicant went there at the prosecutor’s invitation in order to be informed of the content of the criminal file against her (prezentarea materialului de urmărire penală).
12.  The applicant argued that the prosecutor had seen her for only a few minutes at the entrance to his office and that afterwards she had been taken by a police officer to a room on the first floor, where she was kept waiting.
13.  The Government claimed that when the prosecutor declined the applicant’s request to have photocopies of all the documents in the criminal file, she had refused to remain in the prosecutor’s office. Consequently, at 9.30 a.m. the prosecutor issued an order to appear (mandat de aducere) to prevent her from leaving the building and instructed police officer M.L.E. to ensure that it was complied with. The Government submitted a copy of the order to appear.  They also claimed that the applicant had refused to comply with the order, and had continued to behave inappropriately, using malicious language against the prosecutors and the police. The police prevented her from leaving the building. At 10.40 a.m. the applicant was received by the chief prosecutor. She was then allowed to write a complaint in the waiting room of the building.
14.  Subsequently, at an unknown time the same day, E.E. ordered the applicant’s immediate confinement to the Iaşi Psychiatric University Hospital (“the Socola hospital”) for an assessment of her mental state. The reasons given were the following:
“Given that [the applicant] has shown an exaggerated propensity to complain and that her language has become extremely vehement, facts that give rise to doubts as to her psychological state, and having regard to Articles 116, 117 and 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and section 14 of Decree no 79/1971, I order that a psychiatric assessment be conducted ...”.
15.  While she was still in the building, the applicant made a handwritten complaint against the confinement order. In her complaint, she also mentioned that she had been held in the building since 11 a.m. After her confinement she lodged other similar complaints.
16.  At about 2 p.m., as the applicant refused to go to the hospital, prosecutor E.E. asked the police to execute the confinement order. According to the applicant, several police officers dragged her by the hands and lifted her by force into a car, in which she was then taken to the hospital. She sustained several bruises and other injuries. According to a report drafted by the Iaşi police the same day, four police officers (other than M.L.E. – see paragraph 13 above) carried the applicant in their arms to the car. She resisted and tried several times to hit her knees against a wooden doorframe.
17.  The applicant was photographed by the press while being taken away from the premises of the prosecutor’s office. She submitted to the Court several articles that had appeared in the local press. They included a photograph of the applicant on her knees in a doorway while being dragged out of the building by two police officers.
18.  At about 3 p.m. on 28 May 2003 the applicant was presented to the doctor on duty at the Socola hospital.
19.  On 5 June 2003 the applicant underwent an examination by a panel of three doctors at the Socola hospital. The examination report concluded that she was mentally sound and aware of her acts. She was released from the hospital on the same day.
20.  On 9 June 2003 the applicant was informed by a note from the chief prosecutor attached to the Iaşi District Court that her complaint against the confinement order had been dismissed by a decision of 6 June 2003. The prosecutor’s note did not indicate any reasons for the dismissal of the applicant’s complaint.
21.  On 29 May 2003 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination. The doctor reported that she had various bruises on her arms and legs which could have been caused by being hit with blunt objects and by pressure exerted with the fingers, and estimated that she needed three or four days’ treatment.
22.  Following the incident, the applicant submitted numerous requests with various authorities, such as the police, the prosecutor’s office, the Ministry of Justice and the President of Romania. Those relevant to the case are summarised below.
23.  On 3 June 2003, the applicant wrote to the Iaşi County Police asking to be informed of the legal grounds of the actions taken by the police on 28 May 2003. She also requested the names of the police officers who had escorted her by car from the prosecutor’s office to the Socola hospital.
24.  On 26 June 2003, the police informed her that she had been escorted to the Socola hospital by virtue of an order delivered by the prosecutor under Article 117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”), but that they could not disclose the names of the police officers because they were not their employees.
25.  On 4 August 2003, the applicant wrote to the Iaşi Police (Second Precinct) with a similar request (see paragraph 23 above).
26.  On 13 August 2003, the police informed her that the officers who had escorted her were indeed employed by the Iaşi Police (Second Precinct), but that they could not disclose their names without a specific instruction from the prosecutor’s office attached to the Iaşi District Court.
27.  The applicant lodged several complaints against E.E. and other prosecutors who had examined her case, and against M.L.E. She generally complained of abusive behaviour, insults, defamation and the disclosure of confidential information with reference, among other things, to the 28 May 2003 incident. It appears that the prosecutor’s office attached to the Iaşi Court of Appeal examined most of those complaints and decided not to prosecute. The applicant did not challenge the decisions not to prosecute before the courts.
28.  One particular complaint of the applicant’s was examined by the prosecutor’s office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice (“the High Court”). The complaint, directed against M.L.E., E.E. and three other prosecutors, referred, among other things, to ill-treatment, torture and illegal deprivation of liberty.
29.  On 19 June 2003, the applicant was heard by a prosecutor. She gave evidence on the circumstances of her complaint, identifying the individuals against whom she had complained.
30.  On 21 July 2003, the prosecutor’s office attached to the High Court decided not to prosecute, on the grounds that the individuals under investigation had not committed the alleged offences.
31.  The applicant challenged the prosecutor’s decision before the High Court under Article 2781 of the CCP (see paragraph 66 below). By a decision 15 April 2005, the High Court referred the case to the chief prosecutor of the same prosecutor’s office. By a decision of 16 December 2005 the chief prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s criminal complaint, on the grounds that her complaints had already been examined or were under examination at that time. The applicant was informed of that decision on 27 December 2005.
32.  The applicant did not challenge the decision of 16 December 2005 before the courts.
33.  In November 2003, the applicant brought an action against the Iaşi District Court, the Iaşi Court of Appeal and the prosecutor’s office attached to the Iaşi Court of Appeal, claiming that they had unlawfully examined a complaint she had made in February 2003. At a later date, she extended her complaint against the Romanian Government, the Ministry of the Interior, the Romanian Gendarmerie, the General Prosecutor’s Office and the Ministry of Public Finance. She claimed that they had been responsible for the actions of the prosecutor’s office attached to the Iaşi Court of Appeal.
34.  On 15 January 2004, the applicant extended her complaint against a judge, several prosecutors, police officers and gendarmes, claiming that they had been involved in her confinement in the Socola hospital.
35.  By a decision of 20 February 2006, the Iaşi Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s complaint. It noted, in particular, that, with regard to the individuals allegedly involved in her confinement in the psychiatric hospital, the provisions of the Administrative Litigation Act were not applicable and that the applicant should have lodged a criminal complaint.
36.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. By a decision of 16 January 2007, the High Court dismissed her appeal for lack of specification.
37.  On 13 December 2003 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Iaşi District Court issued an indictment against the applicant and eight other individuals (“the co-accused”). The applicant was charged on several counts: defamation, incitement to give false testimony, unlawfully practising activities specific to the profession of lawyer (practicarea ilegală a activităţilor specifice profesiei de avocat), fraud, forgery and use of forged documents.
38.  The case was initially assigned to the Iaşi District Court. The applicant challenged the latter’s impartiality before the High Court and asked for the file to be transferred to a different court. On 5 March 2004, the High Court assigned the case to the Cluj Napoca District Court (“the District Court”).
39.  Fifty-six hearings were held before the District Court. Most of the postponements were for procedural issues (irregularities in notifying the parties, missing case file, failure of proposed witnesses to appear before the court) or at the request of the co-accused or civil parties. The hearing was postponed about twenty-five times at the applicant’s request, owing either to a change of counsel, to her inability to appear before the court for medical or professional reasons or to her challenging the judge reviewing her case. A few of the applicant’s requests overlapped those made by the prosecution or the co-accused.
40.  On 18 March 2005 a District Court judge made a written note in the case file that some documents relating to the charge of “fraud” were missing.
41.  On 24 March 2005 in the District Court the bill of indictment was read out in the presence of the applicant and her chosen counsel. The applicant’s counsel asked that the co-accused be heard separately by the court in order to avoid them influencing each other. Six of the co-accused were heard during that hearing. The applicant and her counsel asked them a few questions. Two of the co-accused did not appear in court and so could not be heard. The court acceded to the applicant’s request to hear the testimonies of four witnesses. She undertook to produce the home addresses of the witnesses in question.
42.  On 6 September 2005 the District Court heard testimony from the applicant. She criticised the manner in which the criminal investigation had been conducted: the prosecutors had refused to carry out a graphology test, had influenced the witnesses and had communicated confidential information to the press. She also complained that her defence rights had been disregarded.
43.  On 21 March 2006 the District Court approved, in the applicant’s presence, her request to have eight additional witnesses heard. The court also heard another co-accused. The applicant’s request to have all the co‑accused, the civil parties and the plaintiffs heard once again was dismissed on the grounds that their testimonies had been taken in accordance with the law.
44.  On 5 September 2006 the District Court heard the last co-accused in the proceedings in the applicant’s presence.
45.  The District Court also heard six of the witnesses proposed by the applicant. The other witnesses did not appear in court for various reasons (for example, they had refused to appear or were too ill to do so).
46.  On 24 April 2007 the applicant declared before the District Court that the offences with which she had been charged had become statute‑barred but that she wanted the proceedings to continue in order to prove her innocence.
47.  During the proceedings before the District Court the applicant requested numerous times that the case be remitted to the prosecutor. However, all her requests were dismissed for lack of grounds. She also asked for a graphology report to be prepared, but her request was dismissed because such a report had already been prepared during the criminal investigation and there was no need for a new one. The applicant raised an objection of non-constitutionality, which was dismissed as ill‑founded. She also argued that the proceedings in respect of the charge of false testimony should be discontinued as a final decision on the subject had already been made, but her objection was dismissed on the grounds that a prosecutor’s decision could not be likened to a judicial decision.
48.  The first-instance proceedings lasted until 23 July 2009, when the District Court delivered a judgment in the case. It established that the applicant had committed all the offences with which she had been charged, but discontinued the criminal proceedings against her on the charges of incitement to false testimony, false accusation and carrying out activities specific to the profession of lawyer, noting that criminal liability for those offences was time-barred. It also found the applicant guilty of the charges of fraud, forgery and use of forged documents, and gave her a three-year suspended sentence. The court found that the evidence adduced during the prosecutor’s investigation was corroborated by the evidence adduced directly before it, namely statements by the accused persons, the civil parties and the witnesses, including the witnesses proposed by the applicant. The court further established that the applicant had forged three documents issued by a law office with a view to certifying her alleged status as an apprentice lawyer, and had pretended to be a lawyer in order to represent five people before the courts. She had forged the signatures of two of her clients on documents she had used in the proceedings concerning those clients. The District Court also ordered the applicant to pay damages to the civil parties.
49.  The applicant, the prosecutor and the civil parties lodged an appeal before the Cluj County Court (“the County Court”). The applicant made written submissions in support of her appeal, requesting leave, among other things, to give a statement before the appellate court.
50.  The County Court held four hearings in the case. The applicant did not attend, but was represented by court-appointed counsel.
51.  During the final hearing on 12 April 2010, the applicant was represented by court-appointed counsel. The court noted that the applicant had submitted a power of attorney for counsel of her choice, indicating that he could not be present at the hearing in question and asking for its postponement. The court decided to proceed with the review of the case even though the applicant and her chosen counsel were not present, indicating that the applicant had been lawfully summoned at the addresses she had given and that she could be represented by the court‑appointed lawyer. The latter asked that the criminal proceedings against the applicant be discontinued or, in the alternative, that a milder sentence be applied.
52.  The County Court delivered its decision on 27 April 2010. It found that the sentence applied to the applicant was too mild, given the offences with which she was charged. It further held that the way in which she had committed the offences revealed that she was highly dangerous. Taking into account her behaviour after having committed the crimes, and her constant denial of guilt, it held that finding her guilty was not sufficient warning for her and that it was therefore fitting that she should serve a prison sentence. It accordingly sentenced her to five years’ imprisonment.
53.  The County Court also found that for two of the crimes of which the applicant had been convicted by the first-instance court (forgery and use of forged documents) her criminal liability was time-barred, and discontinued the proceedings regarding those charges.
54.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, submitting written observations. She raised the following arguments, inter alia:
­ she had not been heard by the lower courts;
­ the case file was incomplete as, according to a note by the first‑instance judge, the documents relating to the fraud charge were missing from the file;
­ two of the co-accused had stated before the first-instance court that they had been forced during the criminal investigation to declare that she had incited them to make false statements;
­ the lower courts had breached her right not to be tried twice for the same acts, since by a final decision of 7 November 2002 the Iaşi County Court had found that her co-accused had not given false testimonies;
­ one of the civil parties had never made a request to join the proceedings as a civil party;
­ her requests for evidence had not been approved; and
­ numerous procedural errors had vitiated the entire proceedings and her right to defence had not been respected during the criminal investigation and before the courts.
55.  The case was registered before the Cluj Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”). The Court of Appeal held two hearings in the case; the applicant did not attend them.
56.  During the final hearing on 20 October 2010, the applicant was represented by a different court-appointed lawyer from the one who had represented her in the appeal proceedings (see paragraph 50 above). The court-appointed counsel indicated that the applicant had instructed her to ask for a postponement of the hearing. The Court of Appeal dismissed her request. The applicant’s representative asked for her acquittal or for a milder sentence.
57.  By a final decision of the same date, the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law as manifestly ill-founded. The court found that the applicant’s right to defence had been respected throughout the proceedings. The court further held that the lower courts had examined extensive evidence, correctly determined the facts of the case and established her guilt beyond any doubt. It also held that the sentence given to her had been correctly determined.
58.  On 3 June 2006, the applicant complained to the Iaşi County Police that police officers had called the press during her removal from the prosecutor’s office to the Socola hospital on 28 May 2003. On 27 June 2003, the police dismissed her allegations and found that the applicant herself had called the press from her mobile phone.
59.  The applicant also lodged several complaints, both criminal and civil, against the journalists who had published articles following that incident. She submitted before the Court copies of first-instance judgments by which two journalists had been ordered to pay her 4,640 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. She also lodged a complaint against the photographer who had allegedly taken the photograph that featured in the impugned articles. The Năsăud District Court dismissed her complaint on 24 November 2004, reasoning that that photographer was not the one who had taken photographs of her, and that taking a person’s photograph was not, in any event, a punishable offence.
60.  The applicant did not provide any information as to whether those judgments became final or were appealed against. Nor did she inform the Court whether she had received the non-pecuniary damages ordered by the courts.